Moscow to Rome: Yes to cooperation, no to communion

[dvdjs]

… many Roman Catholics actually thought that their form of the Creed was the original, and that the eastern Catholic churches had chosen to delete it. There is some reason to believe that Cardinal Humbert shared that opinion.

Perhaps the reason is that this story gets repeated over and over and over again by EOs and fellow travelers. But when probed it is found to be without substantial support. Is there more to this, than just a distortion of what was actually put into the Bull of excommunication by Humbert.

But we’ve been through this before. Too bad these discussion cannot stick to genuine facts.

 

[mardukm]

Perhaps the reason is that this story gets repeated over and over and over again by EOs and fellow travelers. But when probed it is found to be without substantial support. Is there more to this, than just a distortion of what was actually put into the Bull of excommunication by Humbert.

But we’ve been through this before. Too bad these discussion cannot stick to genuine facts.

According to this account:
acad.carleton.edu/curricular/MARS/Schism.pdf

there were two versions of the Bull of excommunication - one that was presented by Cardinal Humbert (the text presented in that website), and another that was circulated by Patriarch Cerularius that actually changed the text.

The original Bull does not claim that the Easterns removed filioque. Is it possible that mention of this “removal of filioque from the Creed” is contained only in the Bull that was falsified by Cerularius, and that it is the falsified Bull that has come down to our EO brethren to this very day, and which they believe is the actual Bull presented by Humbert?

It should be noted that both the reunion Councils of Lyons and Florence never claim that the Greeks removed anything from the Creed.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

The east learned about it when Latin rite missioners or monks went east, but I don’t remember the details. It might have been connected with the Bulgarian missions…

The Apostles to the Slavs would have encountered the Latins using filioque in the Germanic lands. Why didn’t they (nor St. Maximos about 100 years earlier) give a hoot about its inclusion in the Latin Creed? Something to think about.

All the while though, the See at Rome was not using the filioque, so things didn’t go sour between the east and Rome until it was adopted in Rome itself, in about 1005AD (or sometime around then) at which time the Pope at Rome was removed from the dyptichs of the eastern Catholic churches. There was still inter-communion between the churches, the removal from the dyptichs was a form of admonishment, or correction.

There doesn’t seem to be any record of Latins trying to impose Filioque on the East. What we do have a record of are Greeks who, sympathetic to the Latins, argued for the filioque in their own Churches and subsequently condemned (see Synod of Blarchanae).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Yes, but the western church was being admonished to stop using the filioque.

The Pope was in the ‘penaltyy box’, stricken from the dyptichs.

Now that the situation has been elevated to a schism (thanks to Cardinals Humbert and Frederic) we can’t go back to that. It was DEFCON 2 in church polity. They were straining to keep it together. That is not an acceptable starting point for reconciliation, we should’nt go back to a strained relationship ‘on the verge of busting wide open’ and pretend that is acceptable.

It has to go back to normal.

Dear Hesychios,

Perhaps it was not the fault of those two churchmen at all, since the excommunications between them were personal and East and West still considered itself to be One Church until at least the Sack of Constantinople.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

The Apostles to the Slavs would have encountered the Latins using filioque in the Germanic lands. Why didn’t they (nor St. Maximos about 100 years earlier) give a hoot about its inclusion in the Latin Creed? Something to think about.

There doesn’t seem to be any record of Latins trying to impose Filioque on the East. What we do have a record of are Greeks who, sympathetic to the Latins, argued for the filioque in their own Churches and subsequently condemned (see Synod of Blarchanae).

Blessings,
Marduk

Brother Marduk,

What about the Council of Lyons where the Greeks who entered into the Roman Communion were quite “intoxicated” by the Filioque? From that council onwards, Rome did assert the Filioque as universal teaching, did it not?

The Filioque was imposed on the early Eastern Catholics in the Union of Brest 1596.

The Orthodox Saint Athanasius of Brest was martyred precisely because he travelled to the Polish Sejm to warn the Catholics there not to use the gendarmes to impose the recitation of the Filioque in the EC churches (known then as “Orthodox in union with Rome”).

Armed police would enter EC churches to listen intently whether the EC’s included the Filioque in their recitation of the Creed.

The parishioners, not wishing to add this foreign word to the creed, invented a new word, “istynno” meaning “truly.”

So they said the Creed by saying “Who proceeds from the Father truly” (Istynno). The gendarmes thought this was the Filioque as it resembled the Filioque in Slavonic (I Syna).

Much later, this word was expunged from EC prayer books once its origin was determined.

Also, given that St John Damascus in his “De Fide Orthodoxa” condemns the Filioque i.e. the eternal procession of the Spirit “From the Son,” it could well have been that the Greeks who supported the “Filioque” supported the “temporal” procession of the Spirit from both the Father and the Son (or the “Orthodox Filioque”). I don’t know!

Alex

 

[sidbrown]

According to this account:
acad.carleton.edu/curricular/MARS/Schism.pdf

there were two versions of the Bull of excommunication - one that was presented by Cardinal Humbert (the text presented in that website), and another that was circulated by Patriarch Cerularius that actually changed the text.

The original Bull does not claim that the Easterns removed filioque. Is it possible that mention of this “removal of filioque from the Creed” is contained only in the Bull that was falsified by Cerularius, and that it is the falsified Bull that has come down to our EO brethren to this very day, and which they believe is the actual Bull presented by Humbert?

It should be noted that both the reunion Councils of Lyons and Florence never claim that the Greeks removed anything from the Creed.

Blessings,
Marduk

It is interesting that now we are reading that the text of the excommunication bull was falsified. There appears to be a growing list of falsified documents in this area.

 

[mardukm]

What about the Council of Lyons where the Greeks who entered into the Roman Communion were quite “intoxicated” by the Filioque?

I thought I addressed that in my mention of the Synod of Blarchanae(?).

From that council onwards, Rome did assert the Filioque as universal teaching, did it not?

Well, we can’t deny that the consubstantiality of the Spirit with the Father AND the Son is a universal teaching, can we? The issue is the enforcement of the text of filioque on the non-Latin Creed, which has a different theological premise than the Latin Creed.

The Filioque was imposed on the early Eastern Catholics in the Union of Brest 1596.

IIRC, the EC’s at Brest accepted per filium, not filioque.

The Orthodox Saint Athanasius of Brest was martyred precisely because he travelled to the Polish Sejm to warn the Catholics there not to use the gendarmes to impose the recitation of the Filioque in the EC churches (known then as “Orthodox in union with Rome”).

Armed police would enter EC churches to listen intently whether the EC’s included the Filioque in their recitation of the Creed.

The parishioners, not wishing to add this foreign word to the creed, invented a new word, “istynno” meaning “truly.”

So they said the Creed by saying “Who proceeds from the Father truly” (Istynno). The gendarmes thought this was the Filioque as it resembled the Filioque in Slavonic (I Syna).

Much later, this word was expunged from EC prayer books once its origin was determined.

Understood. Thank you for the relation of these events. But I was just addressing the claim that filioque was one of causes of the schism in 1054. In any case, I think we should be careful of assigning the sins of local Latin Churches to the Latin Church as a whole (I’m referring to others who may interpret your statements that way, not saying this was your intention).

Also, given that St John Damascus in his “De Fide Orthodoxa” condemns the Filioque i.e. the eternal procession of the Spirit “From the Son,” it could well have been that the Greeks who supported the “Filioque” supported the “temporal” procession of the Spirit from both the Father and the Son (or the “Orthodox Filioque”). I don’t know!

IIRC, the Damascene was addressing the Pneumatomachi who believed that the Spirit was a creature generated by the Son. That has nothing to do with the Latin teaching on filioque.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Hesychios]

It is interesting that now we are reading that the text of the excommunication bull was falsified. There appears to be a growing list of falsified documents in this area.

There is a claim of that, but no evidence.

The only copy I have ever linked to was this one, apparently constructed from memory by the Cardinal.

Since the man makes some rather spectacularly wild charges in this version, I think we need to consider the claim as spurious until evidence turns up to support it.

 

[bridesmaidpenda]

There is a wide selection of high quality silver pendants. These silver pendants can easily be accessed by looking through jewelry stores. silver pendant in numerous designs are also on sale in online shopping stores. The marketing of silver pendants avails of the latest technology to bring the products easily and quickly to its customers.
silver pendant

Gold or silver heels will work better. You may choose to wear a Short Evening Dresses, but because it is short, you will need to make it look fancier than a long dress.
Short Evening Dresses

 

[bridesmaidpenda]

Strapless Prom Dresses is the most popular this year. This kind of taffeta and satin ball gown features sweetheart neckline and strapless design, beading and embroidery embellishment on the ruffled bodice.
Strapless Prom Dresses



With the upcoming of prom season, most of the teenage girls are busy for preparing their dresses, from the latest fashion shows, short gowns to
Long Prom Dresses are still the most popular items. We’ve collected a few of the top spring long Dresses.
Long prom dresses will never go out of style for one simple reason. They make every girl feel like Cinderella at the ball.
Long Prom Dresses

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Michael,

There is a claim of that, but no evidence.

The only copy I have ever linked to was this one, apparently constructed from memory by the Cardinal.

Since the man makes some rather spectacularly wild charges in this version, I think we need to consider the claim as spurious until evidence turns up to support it.

I can agree with you that some of his charges were pretty crazy, but I would questioning your doubting that Cardinal Humbert would not have a copy of the Bull that he wrote.

The link I gave provides two things: (1) Cardinal Humbert’s account of the events, and (2) the text of his Bull. To repeat, why would not Cardinal Humbert have a copy of the text of his Bull (i.e., instead of trying to reconstruct it from memory?). If his own copy did not contain a charge against the Easterns of removing filioque, why should we trust someone else’s account that it did?

Btw, we also have extant the embassy letter of Pope St. Leo IX that he gave to Cardinal Humbert. That letter does not charge the Easterns of removing filioque either. You had claimed that around the time of the legation to Constantinople, the Latins began to believe that they had the original form of the Creed and that the Easterns deleted the Filioque. May I ask what exactly is your source for that claim?

Also, you mentioned that around 1005, the Pope was stricken from the diptychs. Actually, Patriarch Sergius explicitly included Pope John XVIII (1004 - 1009 A.D.) in the diptychs. It was not until 1014 that filioque was added to the Creed in Rome. If Patriarch Cerularius had to remove the Pope’s name from the diptychs in 1054, doesn’t that dictate that even after the Roman addition of filioque into the Latin Creed, Easterns and Latins were still in communion?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Alexander_Roman]

I thought I addressed that in my mention of the Synod of Blarchanae(?).

Well, we can’t deny that the consubstantiality of the Spirit with the Father AND the Son is a universal teaching, can we? The issue is the enforcement of the text of filioque on the non-Latin Creed, which has a different theological premise than the Latin Creed.

IIRC, the EC’s at Brest accepted per filium, not filioque.

Understood. Thank you for the relation of these events. But I was just addressing the claim that filioque was one of causes of the schism in 1054. In any case, I think we should be careful of assigning the sins of local Latin Churches to the Latin Church as a whole (I’m referring to others who may interpret your statements that way, not saying this was your intention).

IIRC, the Damascene was addressing the Pneumatomachi who believed that the Spirit was a creature generated by the Son. That has nothing to do with the Latin teaching on filioque.

Blessings,
Marduk

Agreed - and thank you for your clarifications!

But regardless of why the Damascene was making his statement, he did make it and it was quoted by Aquinas when he undertook to “disprove” it.

Even St Mark of Ephesus didn’t care what the Latins taught or didn’t teach about the Filioque as long as they didn’t make it into a universal doctrine and as long as they agreed to use the original Nicene Creed without the Filioque.

He was willing to enter into communion with Rome on that basis alone.

The wording of the Creed was also based on scriptural references and the Filioque has no scriptural reference which also works against it in the East.

At Brest, you are correct, the Ruthenians maintained their position on “per Filium.” I was, as you acknowledge, referring to how the local RC’s disregarded that and sought to impose the Filioque - ultimately this wasn’t a religious issue but an issue of trying to culturally assimilate the Orthodox residents of the Kingdom of Poland.

Alex

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Alex,

But regardless of why the Damascene was making his statement, he did make it and it was quoted by Aquinas when he undertook to “disprove” it.

Thanks for bringing this up. I was not aware of it (I’m not an avid Thomas Aquinas reader, and have read him only in light of specific topics that come up). I looked it up in my copy of the Summa. As I suspected, St. Thomas defended the Latin Catholic position on the basis of the consubstantiality of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (i.e., in terms of ousia), and was not at all trying to claim that the Son is the origin of the Holy Spirit in terms of hypostasis. Now, if he (mis)understood the Damascene to be referring to the Divine Essence when the Damascene stated that the Spirit is not from the Son, then St. Thomas would be correct in condemning St. John Damascene. But St. John obviously was not, for in several other places, he explicitly describes the relationship between Father, Son and Holy Spirit in terms of spring-river-lake, of three torches being successively lit from the first torch, etc., etc. It should be noted that St. Thomas explicitly admits: “Although, too, it has been asserted by some that while Damascene did not confess that the Holy Ghost was from the Son, neither do those words of his express a denial thereof.”

Brother Alex, I have read somewhere that St. Gregory Palamas thought highly of St. Thomas Aquinas. Is this true? I actually believe that St. Palamas’ concept of “eternal Energetic Procession” is one of the keys to resolving this tension between the EO and
CC on the matter. What do you think of that?

Even St Mark of Ephesus didn’t care what the Latins taught or didn’t teach about the Filioque as long as they didn’t make it into a universal doctrine and as long as they agreed to use the original Nicene Creed without the Filioque.

He was willing to enter into communion with Rome on that basis alone.

I’ve read Mark of Ephesus’ Epistle against the Union a few times, and I don’t get that impression. He was certainly orthodox in every sense of the word on the matter, but I think he misunderstood the Latin teaching and condemned it too harshly.

The wording of the Creed was also based on scriptural references and the Filioque has no scriptural reference which also works against it in the East.

Do you have any comments on what I wrote in this thread, regarding the original intent of the Fathers of Constantinople for adding “proceeds from the Father” to the Creed?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=549575

It’s barely two pages long yet, so it should be a quick read. Based on that, it seems that John 15:26 can indeed be used by Latins in support of their own theological premise regarding consubstantiality (not per se, but in exegetical consideration of other verses in conjunction with that verse)?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Dear Brother Marduk,

(And actually, all Christians should refer to themselves as “Brother” and “Sister” especially in Church - you set a great example to an ancient tradition here!)

I agree 100% with your assessment of Palamas’ contribution and it is true that many Greeks admired Thomas Aquinas, including St Gennadios Scholarios, Patriarch of Constantinople (no friend of Florence, to be sure!).

Fr. Prof. John Meyendorff (+memory eternal!) wrote (I believe it was in his “Ways of Byzantine Theology”) that certain Greeks even invoked “Blessed Thomas” and in one Orthodox private prayer to Thomas Aquinas it is said that had Aquinas not been born in the West, he would not have defended the Filioque . . . .

Certainly, Orthodox theologians have used Aquinas’ thought in moral theology etc. Our UGCC primate, the Patriarch-Confessor Joseph Cardinal Slipyj had a Byzantine icon of St Thomas Aquinas written for his Roman Cathedral of St Sophia and was very devoted to him (and to St Gregory Palamas - whose feast he restored to our calendar).

(And I got that stuff about St Mark of Ephesus from another work by Meyendorff on the Council of Florence, but I don’t remember it. Meyendorff didn’t value St Mark’s theological acumen highly, as it turned out.)

When all is said and done, as Meyendorff concluded, unity in Triadology could have been had at Florence if the West had agreed to remove the Filioque from a Creed intended to express the faith of the universal Church and if both sides agreed to the “per Filium” and left it at that.

The Filioque, as you know, can be a clumsy theological expression which to the precise Greek philosophical mind is already suspect because it suggests that the Son is the source of the Spirit - a conclusion that is deemed truly heretical by both East and West.

Alex